Tuesday, 31 March 2009

I Thought Lawyers Were Good With Words And Stuff….?

The anonymous lawyer who put innocent chef Peter Bacon through months of hell has been persuaded to open her trap to a newspaper. I thought lawyers were supposed to be quite canny about allowing people not to hang themselves with their own words?

She doesn’t seem to have learned that lesson for herself:

In her interview, the woman said she would never have consented to sex with Mr Bacon because he was 'not her type', and she did not feel the need to 'chase after a 20-something man'.

She told the newspaper: 'I'm fussy about the men I date, I'm quite a snob. For example, I would never date a brick-layer.'

Darling, after six bottles of wine, they’re all Brad Pitt, aren’t they? Or Lord Cholmondley, if that’s what floats your boat…

She said she did not blame herself for what happened and did not regret the drinking.

'I concede I was drinking far more than I should have been-far more than was good for me-and as a result I've since cut back on my drinking. But what happened wasn't my fault.'

She claimed she would never willingly have sex in such a drunken state, and could not understand why Mr Bacon had not noticed how inebriated she was.

'My nickname is Baggy because, when I drink, my face drops and sags very obviously,' she told the newspaper.

Perhaps he didn’t know that, sweetie. Perhaps it never got as far as nicknames. Perhaps you failed to mention your unfortunate ‘condition’, you know, in case he thought you were some kind of old lush?

And perhaps he’d had one too many as well, did that thought ever occur to you?

The woman admitted that she knew her story was weak and that, were she defending such a case in court herself, she would be confident of getting the defendant acquitted. But she reported the incident to police out of 'a moral duty to other women'.

'But what a liability she must be...'- spot on Julia.For a lawyer, Ms X's ability to think logically and analytically seems pretty retarded- you have to feel sorry for her clients.

The Mail article states that, despite the acquittal, she feels 'sorry' for her 'attacker'.WTF would she be feeling if her 'version' of the evening's events had been believed by the jury, and the guy had been sent down for a few years ??